/sci/ - Science & Math

First

There was a group in the 20's called the Technical Alliance formed at Columbia University. They were curious of the effects technology had at the time. During World War 1, hundreds of thousands of men were removed from the industrial processes of North America and yet were still able to produce for themselves with the help of Technology. So, they decided to research how far Technology would take us as far as our social structure was concerned. The research and study by the Technical Alliance marked the first time in history anywhere in the world that a country or a Continent was objectively examined and analyzed on a functionally multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary basis, not as nations and their people have always been compared and rated--and still are--on the basis of their political economic/financial ideology, their military forces, and their philosophical premises. Instead, the Technical Alliance measured and assessed the extent of the land's natural resources of soil, metals, fuels, hydrology and its energy resources, its transport and communications and construction capabilities, its industrial and technological productive capacity, its available scientific, engineering, biological trained personnel--all to determine whether this Continental area could provide an equitably individualized high optimum standard of living for its population, and if so, how this could be brought about.

Second

The group, later on, formed an organization called Technocracy Incorporated. They did this to protect the original research and design planned for North America. It was and still is a nonpolitical, nonsectarian research and educational organization. In 1933, M. King Hubbert and Howard Scott, with the help of many other technocrats wrote the 23 lesson Technocracy Study Course. The course could be used to outline the purpose of and research done by technocracy, and be used as a plan of action for groups wanting to create a Technate or Technocracy when the Price System collapsed. The basic information contained in the course were, the rudiments of science, the scientific basis that make up our complex social activities (ecology, biophysical analysis, etc.), analysis of the Price System (Growth, Mechanization, distribution etc.), and the scientific social design presented in the last two lessons of the course. All this was the original thesis of the Technical Alliance.
>For all of you morons calling it a monetary system just goes to show the stupidity of your “original” ideas. The correct term is PRICE SYSTEM. It is used widely in ECONOMICS to describe the very thing you are arguing against.

Fourth Point


What does this have to do with TVP or ZM?

The Technocracy Study Course and The Venus Project are pretty similar. They both call for a new functional social design and present real solid research proving this. Much of the research presented in the Zeitgeist Movement Orientation guide is also pretty solid stuff. However, this is where the similarities end, and the Resource Based Economy and other moral, philosophical and cult bullshit they created begins. I want to explain the stupidity of RBE/TVP and the functional alternative of the Technate Design for North America, and let /sci decide which is more of a functional alternative.

Third

The famous geoscientist known as M. King Hubbert who developed the Peak Oil theory helped add a few more relevant research and facts used at proving the Price System as an ineffective social construct.

Man Hours and Distribution, M. King Hubbert
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22289589/Man-Hours-and-Distribution-M-King-Hubbert
>Here Hubbert proves how mechanization destroys jobs and therefore purchasing power in the Price System.

Hubbert's Prescription for Survival, A Steady State Economy
http:// mkinghubbert-technocracy.blogspot.com/
> Basically the same proposal that is presented in the Study Course, but still a very interesting read.

M. King Hubbert on the nature of Growth
https://people.sunyit.edu/~barans/energy/pdf/M.%20King%20Hubbert%20on%20the%20Nature%20of%20Growth%2
01974%20Congressional%20Testimony.pdf
> M. King Hubbert’s Testimony on the congressional board in 1974 and how he proved energy was a central factor in our society and how growth is needed to be sustained, but is illogical and goes against the basic laws of thermodynamics. This information overlaps heavily with Biophysical Economics.

Fifth

The Technate Design

I assume most of you guys against TVP/RBE understand the utter stupid that is in their proposal. However, I want to outline what Techocracy Technate design is first, for those of you who don’t know the science based social design. First, if you want to really get into depth about the concept you should read the last two chapters of the Technocracy Study Course. There are various other interesting researches presented in the course, but for a quick understanding that is the essential place to look.
There are two very distinct parts of the design. There is the administration of science and an energy accounting statistical system (biophysical economics).

Sixth

The Science Administration

Basically, it is a meritocracy. People in their various places of knowledge and skill are voted amongst themselves to administer whatever skill, function, or purpose they have. It is similar to the concepts of Industrial Democracy and Workplace Democracy but not a definition of it.
Positions are filled based on the proven method of nomination from below and appointment from above. For example, if a position were vacated for whatever reason, then the people immediately below that position would nominate candidates from among their ranks for the position.
Then the managers from the rank above the position would choose from those candidates the person most qualified for the job.
This is the method that is most often used in the technical portions of present organizations, and is based on competence.
Competence of the person is determined by the consistent operation of the technology involved.
If such machinery should fail to operate within acceptable parameters, then the person responsible would be quickly removed and replaced with someone who could perform the job adequately.
In short, the administration operates as an open source system, where collaboration of groups organize together and decide collectively, by consensus, using facts, knowledge, research(science) to administer Technology to society in a humanitarian, secular way, hence the name Technocracy.
The major difference between TVP/ZM is they think in some dogmatic objective science. Claiming algorithms developed, by who, are used in making decisions in their model. That has to be the dumbest fucking idea I have ever come across. I can’t believe they actively promote that bullshit, but then again, they are a cult. So they are centrally planned economy, whereas, Technocracy Technate is not. I will explain further in the energy accounting system of the Technate Design.

Seventh

The Energy Accounting Statistical System

If you’ve taken ecology and know of it, you’d understand the importance of understanding energy flows and thermodynamics, the history by which came from Willard Gibbs. He was a major influence on the research done by the Technical Alliance and their thesis. Energy accounting uses Biophysical Economics. Not some cockamamie made up term as “resource based economy”. Biophysical economics has major academic participation. Look it up.
This method records the Energy used to produce and distribute goods and services consumed by citizens in a Technate. Energy certificates unlike money are used in a Technate for accounting purposes only. Unlike money or currencies, units of energy cannot be saved or earned, and will be distributed evenly among a populace. The number of units given to each citizen would be calculated by determining the total productive capacity of the technate and dividing it equally, after basic costs of running the infrastructure are considered.
In energy accounting the Technate would use information of natural resources, industrial capacity and citizen’s consuming habits to determine how much of any good or service is being consumed by the populace, so that it would balance production with consumption.

Eighth (continued from energy accounting system)

The use of 'ENERGY CREDITS' is not described in the design of the Technate
The energy certificate is an energy accounting system only.
There is no such use of it as a CREDIT.
If one has credit, then Q must follow P and thus one must also have DEBIT.
The energy certificate does NOT replace Money. It has NO VALUE at all. It cannot be saved, Hoarded, or traded. Its only use in the Technate is as an energy accounting system and production and distribution accounting of all goods and service produced.
The mere attachment to the Energy Certificate to Credit, debt, or money i.e. medium of exchange is totally erroneous and false. Therefore it is not technocracy.
This Technocratic system is referred to as Energy Accounting using Energy certificates. Technocrats point out that energy accounting is not rationing; it is a way to distribute abundance and track demand. Everyone would receive an equal amount of energy certificates which would far exceed the ability of the consumer to use. Anything short of that is a Price System.
They wrote that the system must do the following things:
"Register on a continuous 24 hour-per-day basis the total net conversion of energy.
"By means of the registration of energy converted and consumed, make possible a balanced load.
"Provide a continuous inventory of all production and consumption
"Provide a specific registration of the type, kind, etc., of all goods and services, where produced and where used [Scott, Howard et al, Technocracy Study Source, p. 232]
The energy certificate can be updated as a Distribution Card today, and the possibility of ordering certain goods through the computer or internet can be used.
The difference with RBE is that NOTHING is analyzed or distributed equitably. Apparently all you have to do is order shit over the computer and you get it….

ninth(LAST)

Isn’t this a centrally planned economy?

TVP/ZM is a centrally planned economy by the used of an AI or some other retarded shit they are trying to cook up. Anyway, Technocracys energy accounting statistical system would distribute using available consumption rates of the population. So you “vote” when you consume….so it is a DECENTRALLY PLANNED ECONOMY.

Please post this ANYWHERE so a real alternative can go out there and not this Cult bullshit that is TVP or ZM and thanks for reading…please participate in discussion forums here

http:// technocracy.drupalgardens.com.forum

Bump this shit

Bump?

if this had anything to do with a discussion on the merits of a technocratic society, i wouldn't sage it.

Shamless Self BUMP

>>2439439

What the hell does that mean? Bump this if you agree then.

What...not one response from any TZM or anybody else? No question?

How do you kill everyone that doesn't agree? Or how do you plan on accomplishing this?

>>2439632

I'm checking out your site, babylumps.

>>2439660
... and the link didn't work even when I removed the space

>>2439657

There were many possibilities for transition. The general consensus was once the Price System collapsed, then something to this scale would have to be used as a functional alternative. We as a society have only benefited from technology and access to cheap energy. Growth is demanded in a Price System, so it can't go on forever. Peak Oil is already here. This is the reason why the organization is non political and non sectarian, only an education and research group. They new it would a tall order to convince people to implement this.

This is why FEMA was developed by technocrats as a transition tool in the event of a crash. The structure of FEMA before Bush changed it was exactly as envisioned by Technocrats.

>The Technocracy Study Course and The Venus Project are pretty similar

>fucking retarded tzm/tvp are cult dipshits

Im getting mixed signals here OP. And further, I happen to know TZM and Technocracy affiliates are on pretty communicable terms, at least in the northwest.
The single biggest point of contention being the institutionalization of a meritocracy, which is a major concern to those worried about concentration of power and influence.

>>2439657

There were also a few other different ideas, such as Total Conscription.

There is also the energy input labeling project. It's purpose was to get as many people and organizations to label the energy usage of whatever their product was.

http://carbonlabeling.org/energylabeling/index.html

>>2439711

You are confusing retarded technocrats who don't understand the purpose of the Technate Design, they also with to change major aspects of it. So I don't know what you mean by technocrats are communicating with ZM...because those people are most likely involved with a few groups who wish to change much of what was written in the study course.

>>2439711

There are groups in Europe and from the north east who were involved in the organization, but were booted because of what they were doing. So there is absolutely no connection to this material I presented and ZM or any other 'technocrats' who claim to be in communication with ZM.

>>2439745
Oh, sorry.
I didn't realize there were entire organizations of Technocrats who could be classified as "retards".

How much is your membership fee, by the way?

>>2439762

So, I assume you may be one of them? You seemed to be pretty knowledgeable about the certain schisms involved in the current movement. Otherwise you wouldn't have asked me such questions.

Yes, I honestly think they aren't very bright people. The information presented in the study course is pretty simple.Unfortunately, they seemed to have confused it and wish to 'change' certain things. If they have any contact with ZM, that should definitely indicate red flags about their knowledge.

this system does not take into account greed, there is no failsafe for monopolization of command positions

OP would do well to try to convey his info in a clear manner, free from derogatory comments like

>hurr TVP/ZM they're retards
>bulshit

It makes it hard to take you srsly. It also sheds a very immature light on everything you post

>>2439825

hmmm, that is an interesting argument, and it has been somewhat addressed by technocrats by using a retirement age of 45 as an idea, but this isn't set in stone.

However, to state it is a failed concept because of that simple argument is pretty stupid. Especially after considering all the facts and research that contribute to the Price System demise and increased social instability that arises from it.

>>2439841

Okay, I can lighten up on that.

>>2439799
>make long-ass reply post
>response fucking where?
>down the rabbit hole
>such is life is soviet 4chan

Okay. Doing this again.

Im not a part of any group, its just that I like to research a matter before I talk about it, which is why you'll not find me in a theoretical physics thread beyond expressing interest or fascination.

On the other hand, given you seem to equate everyone not in your group with "retards", I'd likely fall in there somewhere.

Im actually more interested in the particular differences of your TT group, and the Technocrats Im familiar with.
Like, for instance, how do you intend to enact a technical meritocracy and prevent the corruption inherent to a system of currency exchange?
It seems if there's ONE given in such a system, it's the inevitable consolidation of power, wealth, and influence. Does your group have no interest in egalitarianism, or... ?

all systems today are pretty bad, mainly because the consolidation of power is inevadable, domocracy to republic, socialism to communism, over all I'm for technocracy, but it has to be applied right or not at all.

>>2439877

Sorry, Op. Damage is done. I am neither Tech nor TVP. However, I am anti dickholes that cant post something intellectual without ruining it by tarnishing it with their own ego, insecurities and general dick demeanor.

In summation, noone will take you srsly on such an adult topic untill you can communicate like one.

You do the techs a diservice by writing like you do and make TVP look better in comparison.

>>2439306
>The major difference between TVP/ZM is they think in some dogmatic objective science. Claiming algorithms developed, by who, are used in making decisions in their model. That has to be the dumbest fucking idea I have ever come across. I can’t believe they actively promote that bullshit, but then again, they are a cult.
THANK YOU FOR BEING SANE

This was ALWAYS my primary objection. There's a massive gaping hole where the system of "who writes the algorithms and what makes him so smart and trustworthy" is completely missing. It would just turn into another Soviet Union.

I'm much more willing to accept this proposal than ZM bullshit.

>>2439910
>>2439893

As I've said before, there were many plans of action for a transition. I don't claim to be of any particular one. I'm only interested in present the accurate information presented in the study course. As is the purpose of the group itself as well. The people would have to decide, if not, and social unrest develops in a collapse, maybe there will be a military action. I wouldn't know nor can guess at how it would be implemented.

>Like, for instance, how do you intend to enact a technical meritocracy and prevent the corruption inherent to a system of currency exchange?
Your question doesn't make sense. The technate design is not a price system construct. If the question is asking about corruption, I wouldn't know what to say. Only that the system is open source and usually if statistics and information was off, I'm sure that would be investigated by someone.

It seems I have insulted quite a bit of people connected to ZM/TVP.

I'm sorry, you don't have to post, but this is my own personal opinion. They are a cult. My language doesn't have to be pretty for logic to be understood. If you disregard anything I wrote on the basis of that, you are not a person of science.

the main question we should be asking about this proposed system is who is holding the guns and what do they want?

>>2440004

OP's an idiot. An idiot with copypasta at best

This last post just confirmed it. I shudder at the thought of the techs having someone like you trying to relay their info.

>>2440030

My post here, I am pro techs btw

i am anti OP

>>2439980
Right, and therein Im seeing another similarity-

That fundamentally the "decisions" made are not arbitrary, they are arrived at.
In this systems approach, there is no room for corruption as we know it, as "policy", such as it will be, is a matter of verifiable, quantifiable data. This allows for a system of holographically empirical decisions, not based on opinion, cultural relevancy, or religious interpretation.
That which is self-evident will be seen as such, and must render results that can be reproduced at every level.
Getting closer?

>>2440030

What are you talking about? I'm right here talking, no copy pasta. All the stuff written above was written by me. Did you read it?

Ok let's get down to it. You cannot call people that dont follow your same beliefs "retards", infact the very act says a great deal about your own retardation, OP.
Second, do not umbrella all of TZM/TVP's info as "bullshit"
>There is no doubt the polarizing effect of their bullshit.
and then state
>They both call for a new functional social design and present real solid research proving this. Much of the research presented in the Zeitgeist Movement Orientation guide is also pretty solid stuff.
Next we'll deal with OP's very mature approach to starting an intelligent discussion
>I hope this presentation would destroy any relevance they have
Not very open minded, OP. Why is this your aim?
>I want to explain the stupidity of RBE/TVP and the functional alternative of the Technate Design for North America, and let /sci decide which is more of a functional alternative.
Clearly that is not your aim. You are here for people to agree with you. Otherwise you would not make such a biased statement. Hurr durr, one method is stoopid and the other is awesomeo, which one is better. /sci/?

Next, Let's deal with your use of the word "cult". Why is this a cult, OP? I think somewhere along the line your logical reasoning failed and your ego kicked in. It doesnt take a scientist to realise why they have amassed such a following. Lecture tours, Books, THREE films that have gone viral, reaching millions. So according to you, those millions are part of a "cult" and are "retarded" for agreeing with a method without seeing, let alone being aware of any other?
All I know is, if I was pro tvp and knew nothing of the techs, after reading your posts and the info is conveyed I would not want to know more.

In summation, Lrn2adult. Otherwise I give you a 4/10...troll harder, faggot.

>>2440275
They ask you to stop thinking, and let someone else take over. Red flags everywhere.

Tell me this: In the Zeitgeist scenario, who designs and programs the control algorithms?

Even worse, who chooses the "human happiness" metric? That's a human value-judgment; science can't pick it for you.

inb4 zeitard

I see flaws and I see benefits, like with anything. Difference is, I'm an adult about it. This is also why I choose not to discuss such matters with an 18 yr old, fresh outta high school pseudo "man of science".

>>2440293
Chill man, he's honestly trying to help you communicate better. I suggest you take his advice.

Further, you should read Sam Harris for some insight into your latter question of subjective value systems and what science may perhaps have to say about that.

>>2440321
I'm familiar with Sam Harris. But are you honestly pretending that picking the "human happiness function" is NOT a human value judgment?

And EVEN IF IT IS, who do you trust to describe it accurately? This is rife for abuse.

My greatest consolation is that there are very few Zeitgeist zealots. Meanwhile, I'll be supporting things that will actually *work* to preserve the long-term future of humanity.

>>2440302

I guess I must have activated your rage machine. There's no doubt you are a part of or connected to ZM/TVP for you to put so much emotions into those posts.

I just vented my opinions that are very sensible. They are a cult because they use personalities in Fresco and Joseph to promote their ideas. They use Agitprop as a means to gather 'followers' and present their information is the weirdest of ways.

I'm against their proposal and the way they present information that disproves the Price System as a social construct. I thought I made that clear in my presentation.

>>2440350

BTW, Agitprop is a portmanteau of "agitation" and "propaganda" and was coined in Soviet Russia as a more aggressive form of propaganda, appealing to the emotions. This is what they do, they are a cult. Plain and simple

>>2440370
Thanks for the vocabulary expansion. Was that word in 1984? I read it recently but don't remember.

>>2440375

I'm not sure cause I've never read it. Sorry for the non help.

>>2440375

>oh wow, that was pretty clever. +1

>>2440321
Unfortunately Sam Harris is wrong.

>>2440400
I was interested in reading his book (I haven't), and the premise seem reasonable: That you can define a results-based system of ethics, where "good" ethical principles are the ones which best tend to promote human behavior that maximizes wellbeing.

What does he do wrong?

>>2440425
>That you can define a results-based system of ethics, where "good" ethical principles are the ones which best tend to promote human behavior that maximizes wellbeing.
You /can/ define good that way. I might disagree. So might others. Science cannot prove which is right because it's not a question that can be answered by evidence.

>>2440400
Bold statement considering the theory is formative, and his work in neurology.

Have you read The Moral Landscape?

>>2440442
I have not. I have no need to.

Let me be clear here. If you want to pick a particular metric of human wellbeing, then science can do the rest. However, which metric do you pick? No amount of evidence can answer which you /ought/ to pick.

Science can only answer empirical questions, never moral questions. Empirical questions are always of the form "If I make observation X, what will I see?". Moral questions are always of the form "Should I do X?".

>>2440481
Thats not a terribly humble attitude for a scientist to take, considering the discipline is predicated and advanced on the willingness to be proven wrong.

Also remember that just because we don't yet know the answers, that doesn't mean that there are none.

The practical implications of your position relegate mankind to determine life and cultural values through religious impression and cultural tradition. Hasn't gone so well so far imo.

what the shit is this fuck? why do i keep seeing these weird threads on my /sci/ ?

i'm a 29 year old computer scientist in San Francisco and what is this?

>>2440498

You wouldn't happen to be supportive of Neuro-linguistic programming?

>>2440498
I'd welcome to be proven wrong.

However, it's evident just from the meanings of the English words. How can an observation compel you to act in a particular way a priori? It can't. No amount of evidence is a proof that murder is wrong unless you have some preconceived notions about morality.

Luckily, (nearly) all humans share a similar innate Kantian morality, as a result of evolution by natural selection, so we do share a common starting point.

>>2440509
Well said. I wish I had time to pursue this further, but I have to be off.
I really wish I could convince you to read it. You would not be wasting your time, and I'd enjoy discussing it with you.

In the interim, take care.

So, basically the differences of the two ideas is one side thinks they can define morals and therefore create an AI or algorithmic formula that can make decisions and the other side disagrees and wishes to use a science administration. Ignoring the economics of course.

btw great discussion everyone.

The common thread being a belief in magic.

This will only work if you're leader is Buddha and you're all buddhist monks. I bet after 3 days of technobable some Stalin wannabe will be in charge ruling with an iron fist.

the main points of the movie:

1. earth has finite resources

2. in order for our species to sustain itself, we need to start using our resources efficiently.

3. capitalism does not use resources efficiently, capitalism is only concerned with cost efficiency.

4. computers, technology and mechanization are replacing most labor jobs, and will continue to do so.

5. money markets create debt, and paired with capitalism, resource inefficiency, and mechanization, is resulting in massive waste of resources, and massive inequalities in wealth.

6. massive inequalities of wealth cause and intensify biological, sociological and genetic problems in society.

7. rather than inflating our way into temporary growth, which increases the speed and inefficiency in which we use our finite resources, we should stop using a monetary system that creates wealth inequalities.

8. a society that not only accepts but encourages increased mechanization and technology can mange the resources in such a manner that everyone should have a base standard of living, centered around the intelligent use of resources.

9. this society will in theory be relatively egalitarian, since private property is obsolete. everything will be provided, and things like politics will be cast aside, since politics does not decide by facts, but by consensus. most crime should be theoretically eliminated because when humans are allowed to develop without current stresses, they should be more mentally balanced.

10. people will still be required to work, but people will be incentivized to work because any benefit to society will also be a benefit to that person.

this is the tenets of ZM, TVP.

note: i don't believe humanity could eve

>>2440958
That seems reasonable up until 6. Once it started discussing its pipedream plans, then it becomes total bullshit.

>>2440970
well, im "pessimistic", in that i don't see the wealthy and powerful ever relinquishing their power so that they are only as equal as anyone else.

never mind a Stalin figure taking over because of a lack of a sovereign force to defend the system.

i like the discussion the movie and ideas creates. unfortunately, one side screams communism or strawmans the argument, or the other side turns the ideas of the movie into a pretty poem.

my view is a socialism/social democracy state that doesn't drop private wealthy and property, but regulates it enough to stop the top 1% from turning the bottom 99% into serfs...and starts using our resources in an intelligent way.

>>2441003
Anyone who can say
>10. people will still be required to work, but people will be incentivized to work because any benefit to society will also be a benefit to that person.
is an insufferable retard or an evil troll.

Go away.

>>2441007
that is what the MOVIE states.

notice, my ordered list simplifies the movie into points of discussion, not truths that i personally hold.

also, jonas sulk gave away his vaccine for free, when he could have become unimaginably wealthy. via your logic, was he insufferably retarded, or just the biggest troll in the history of man?

>>2441024
Let me fix that. Anyone who can honestly claim
>10. people will still be required to work, but people will be incentivized to work because any benefit to society will also be a benefit to that person.
is true with a straight face is an insufferable retard or an evil troll.

Does this mean that random acts of kindness cannot occur, like Jonas Sulk? No. But it does mean that most people act selfishly enough that incentive to help out society will unimaginably fail to provide personal incentive. It's called the tragedy of the commons, otherwise known as the freeloader problem.

Why should sustainability be our goal? Why should we give up consuming in the present so that we can consume sometime in the future? Why is that better?

>mfw i thought the venus project was a plan to colonize venus, rather than some bullshit newage hippy shit.
;_;

>>2441034
Well, to ZM, there will be a very limited amount of human labor involved. I believe, they estimate 3% of the population would be required to work (again, I don't even believe humanity can get anywhere near that stage).

Since a lot of the work required by humans would be related to science, I think that enough people would be interested in research and development to continue progress.

>>2441035
Well, we don't have to stop consuming at the pace we're at now. We're alive, our descendants are not. But if you think that humanity as a species should continue, and that if it should continue, it should do so in a better condition than we do now, then we need to stop wasting resources that are finite.

>>2441041
i think there is a fbf thread going on /b/ right now. you should find that more to your liking than this thread.

>>2441062
>Well, we don't have to stop consuming at the pace we're at now. We're alive, our descendants are not. But if you think that humanity as a species should continue, and that if it should continue, it should do so in a better condition than we do now, then we need to stop wasting resources that are finite.
I don't care; I'll be dead. If I would live longer my time preference would be lower.

>>2441062
>Well, to ZM, there will be a very limited amount of human labor involved. I believe, they estimate 3% of the population would be required to work (again, I don't even believe humanity can get anywhere near that stage).
Pipedreams and flagrantly false facts everywhere.

>>2441079
herp to the derp, bro. thanks for sharing.

>>2441083
you seem to be interested in discussion. which facts are flagrantly false? otherwise, just label it as communism and type a lol afterwards.

>>2441096
What? Only need 3% of a population to work in order to supply for the rest? Oh fuck no. I don't know what magic land you live in, but it requires a shitton more than 3 people to supply enough food for a hundred, even with modern tech, given the current distribution of people and tech.

>>2441103
>>2441103
3% is an estimate, and I would assume it is based on technological advancement.

not to mention, there is a certain point where adding labor to a job doesn't increase quality or quantity of performance. while 3 people aren't going to be able to perform the amount of farming required to feed 100 people, once you reach numbers of 100 million, do you think you could get by with 3 million farmers?

also, its just an estimate that i'm trying to remember from the movie, which i watched a week or so ago. i could be incorrect on that...estimate...

>>2441103
Well thats the thing. TVP live in fantasy land. While a fully automated labor forced would probably be sweet and bring about HUGE social change, it's not gonna happen any time in the near future. Maybe in 100-200 years, and thats being generous.

>>2441129
Ok. You're right that this is a minor point. The bigger fish to fry is that they want to eliminate money, which makes them immediately uber retarded, especially as they haven't presented a workable alternative.

>>2441136
at this point in its existence, i don't believe they think they're going to just overthrow all governments, militaries and money.

i think their point is to raise awareness about our limited resources, and that there is a much better way of using our resources.

>>2441143
>i think their point is to raise awareness about our limited resources, and that there is a much better way of using our resources.
That's nice to claim, and it's even true, but their idea of doing away with money is fucktarded.

You won't feel that way when someday all the money you and everyone else worked so hard to get is essientially useless because the economy has become so shit, people clinging on until it's death because it's all they know.

>>2441149
if you're interested in how money can acquire worth in a society without the money actually having real value, even as to what it represents, take a look at this.

http://www.slate.com/id/1937/

look, i agree. i don't believe that humans will ever cease to use money or markers of value. not voluntarily. but, the movie has enough valid concerns that when people just outright dismiss it with a "communism lol" remark, i get annoyed. especially when discussion about one thing can create better ideas, no matter how silly the original was.

Technocracy has always contended is that if sufficient energy consuming devices are installed and the total amount of extraneous energy consumed per capita reaches or exceeds 200,000 kilogram calories per capita per day, the price system would begin to collapse because jobs will be destroyed and growth won't be achieved.

Guess where we are at today?
around 225,000 kilogram calories per capita per day and top economist around the world today admit we are not growing any more, nor can we if we tried.

Now that is some serious predictions made with serious research.

>>2441170
Another money will inevitably emerge. It always has and will until we no longer need to trade.

>>2441221
even given that we can get to a society that ZM thinks could exist, money would always exist.

one of the things in the movie is how resources could be alloted to people in relation to how they need it.

thing is, i can imagine many situations where people will simply convert their "rights" to some good or service into an IOU.

i mean, there can only be so many houses built along the Mediterranean. assuming you could, say, sign up for a month's usage of that house, you could trade that time to someone else for, say, a month's usage of a house in some other locale that is inherently limited.

money and exchange will always exist. even interest.

>>2441221

You obviously missed the point. Even if they changed to a new price system, growth is needed for it to function properly. Meaning the cycle of money and trade needs to keep on moving. You can't do that when technology is destroying jobs and therefore purchasing power. You'll need to create more service jobs, and that probably won't even work either.

Pic related.

>>2441254
If people had less money the purchasing power of that money would be greater, not less.

>>2441249

ZM thing would never work as outlined in the beginning of the thread.

>>2441267

Herpa derp >Well if pigs have wings, I bet they could fly too?!
You are still missing the point.

>>2441268
not too bright, eh?

>>2441280
What point am I missing?

op, people already vote with their consumption in today's markets, but the voting is a lot more complex and difficult to understand than it would be in a TT, so most people just ignore it and consume like animals.
Technocrats are creating the future of our society, but people are a lot dumber than they previously wanted to admit, and the newest models do take this into account.

>The major difference between TVP/ZM is they think in some dogmatic objective science.

Throwing around "cult" and "bullshit" makes you seem dogmatic.
Further, you have not disproved the Zeitgeist Movement's ideas. At best, you have noted details that could be easily worked into the "resource-based economy". At worst, you have merely bitched about who came up with the ideas first and what the technical terms are, which is the very definition of elitism.

>>2441397
If you're willing to bitch about elitism, you have no interest in the Zeitgeist movement.

Providing the average troglodyte with the bread and circus he/she needs to fend off the the scardy cats is a balancing act. If you give them too much information. They might figure something out. If you give them too little, they might figure something out. What don't you understand about this, Mr. Man of Science?????

>Peak Oil
haha oh wow, stopped reading right there. Welcome to crazy central.